Jump to content

OT: The Photography Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by keybdwizrd

View Post

Here are some pics I took of people without asking permission. Am I in big trouble or what?


PICT0345.jpg


DSC00331.jpg


100_2695.jpg


PICT1337.jpg


100_3018.jpg

 


Only if you sell for profit could you be prossecuted for not getting a model release from all those who are recognisable.


You appear to be a good example of a good person on the right side of the law.


Proceed biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bernard

View Post

If you sell the pics without a signed release of the subject (or their guardian) your on the wrong side of the law.

 

Wrong (in America at least). You are only on the wrong side of the law if you are violating the subjects' rights. For ordinary people, the biggest issue would be is if someone is violating your rights if you are expecting privacy.


So, yes, if you are secretly filming someone boinking in their bedroom, you are violating the law. If you are secretly filming someone just walking down the street, you are *not* violating the law.


Other issues that the person can sue over are things like defamation, where the photo was deliberately taken for malice purposes. They may not win. Most people are not defamed by simply walking down the street. The plaintiff has the burden of proof.


Copyright is another issue, for people whose actual image makes them money, and/or when the photo is being used *to* make money (eg in an advertisement). Most people are not famous enough for this to apply. Ordinary published photos are different than advertisements.


Photographer's rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The march of technology knackered my pursuit of photographic artistry.


I have a nice SLR with lots of accessories: lenses, lights, remote flashes, backdrops, filters, everything needed for three point portraiture lighting, ect. I spent many happy hours experimenting with indoor lighting, waiting for the 'sweet' light outside, and tramping through the woods looking for those Ansel Adams vistas. Consequently, I have many boxes of silver halide masterpieces. Does anyone look at them? No.


We look at the crappy snaps on the PC slide show that were taken with the cheap point & shoot digital cams.


But I can't be bothered with film anymore, and I just can't bring myself to plunk down a thousand or two to 'get started' all over again with a DSLR.


I guess crappy snaps are better than nothing.


And yes, I back up my HDD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Purity_Control

View Post

I'd love to be able to do stuff like that, but if you did it in the UK they'd try to arrest you as a terorist or a paedophile if there were any kids in it frown.gif Everything here has got so paranoid frown.gif

 

Paranoia lives here, too.


US schools: 1970 vs. 2010

---------------------------------


Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.


1970 - Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.


2010 - School goes into lockdown, the FBI is called, Jack is hauled off to jail and never se More..es his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.

_________________________________


Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.


1970 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.


2010 - Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.

_________________________________


Scenario: Jeffrey won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.


1970 - Jeffrey is sent to the principal's office and given a good paddling. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.


2010 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra state funding because Jeffrey has a disability.

_________________________________


Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.


1970 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.


2010 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.

_________________________________


Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some Aspirin to school .


1970 - Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal out on the smoking dock.


2010 - Police are called and Mark is expelled from School for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.

_________________________________


Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover Independence Day firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.


1970 - Ants die.


2010 - Homeland Security and the FBI are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. Teams investigate parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

_________________________________


This scenario is relevant to the branching off of this thread: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.


1967 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.


2010 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.


hopd.jpg


 

Quote Originally Posted by soundwave106

View Post

I find it a weird world where Guy With Camera gives people THE FEAR (Girl With Camera probably wouldn't facepalm.gif), but people have no problem with security cameras recording their every move up the yingyang. A big digital SLR will inspire THE FEAR, but cell phone cameras don't (even though those worried about privacy have far more to be concerned about cell phone cams).


My view: if you are in a public place, there is an implied consent. Yes, it's nice to be polite and respectful and whatnot, but I find it weird just how much bitching "being photographed" seems to inspire.

 

Brilliant.


____________________________________


Back on topic:


Love the pics that you have posted. Some of them are professional-looking, others very artistic! I am relatively new to photography, but thanks to the massive amount of online resources [including youtube], I am learning slowly but surely. I have a lot of technical questions about photography and videography, but I am researching the answers through reading. If I don't find an answer or find it and don't understand it, I will definitely count on my friends here to explain things to me... and others. Meanwhile, keep them coming!


I think musicians are a special breed. They are talented in so many different things beside music. Thank you very much for sharing your work!





Hey, it's KSS. Remember?icon_lol.gif

[life size]


piano.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Diametro

View Post

This thread is proving ...


1) Most people have no idea what makes a good photo ...


2) They don't care if they bother posting a good photo ... as long as it's theirs ...

 

Hi D! wave.gif


My pictures were all taken with various phones. So the quality is not as good as a big-ass digital camera. Also, I'm far from a professional photographer. I just snap shots of things I like smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by soundwave106

View Post

Wrong (in America at least). You are only on the wrong side of the law if you are violating the subjects' rights. For ordinary people, the biggest issue would be is if someone is violating your rights if you are expecting privacy.


So, yes, if you are secretly filming someone boinking in their bedroom, you are violating the law. If you are secretly filming someone just walking down the street, you are *not* violating the law.


Other issues that the person can sue over are things like defamation, where the photo was deliberately taken for malice purposes. They may not win. Most people are not defamed by simply walking down the street. The plaintiff has the burden of proof.


Copyright is another issue, for people whose actual image makes them money, and/or when the photo is being used *to* make money (eg in an advertisement). Most people are not famous enough for this to apply. Ordinary published photos are different than advertisements.


Photographer's rights

 


I meant to sell as in commercial work. Sorry if that was not clear, hence my caveat it's just a rough guide. If your doing work for profit study study the law!


The exception would be to sell to a news paper if the photo's were in the public interest. This is rare and in some cases you still could be done for exploiting your access if it was a friend etc that had become the target of press interest.


Generally for commercial sales, and I really meant things like advertising, I am sure model release is pretty similar in the states as it is in the UK.


Lets give you an example that is not so obvious to most:


keybdwizrd uses a photo of a man in Russia on his record cover to enhance sales. He becomes an over night success and multi million pounds key playing star (I am sure this will happen one day biggrin.gif)


The chap from Russia gets tipped off. A law firm agree to pursue the case on a no win no fee arrange and then prosecute keybdwizrd for not getting a model release.


BTW way a model release also requires some form of payment to the subject, don't think a signed piece of paper will always stand up in court. You can be accused of exploitation.


wave.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by keybdwizrd

View Post

And let's remember that here in America, at least, anybody can sue anybody anytime for anything, regardless of the actual law.

 

Thank your lawyers for this. It's the only job that is legally monopolistic and self generating. There needs to be some laws against what lawyers are allowed to do... but oh wait! Guess WHO makes the laws? And profits from them? It's a crime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by BonsoWonderDog

View Post

Don't post any more pics.


Diametro doesn't approve.

 

"Foreign lands" photos are better ... Technically speaking, not stunning, but at least there's some content ...


...


BTW, Bonso ... You have my permission to ignore me ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by wwwjd

View Post

Thank your lawyers for this. It's the only job that is legally monopolistic and self generating. There needs to be some laws against what lawyers are allowed to do... but oh wait! Guess WHO makes the laws? And profits from them? It's a crime

 

Tomorrow is killalawyer day ... Jesus will look the other way ... I promise ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bernard

View Post

wave.gif

 

Ah, okay. You are correct there. In practice, the big distinction is commercial applications. You really don't need a model release form for photographic exhibits or even if you sell prints of a photograph ("art" applications).


You *do* need a model release form the instant you slap that photo on an advertisement, album cover, commercial web site, kiosk, or any "business" application -- at least, if you are making money. Elsewise, the person could sue for a piece of the profit that comes from using their likeness. (If you are not making money from said image, no one is going to sue, of course. icon_lol.gif)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Diametro

View Post

"Foreign lands" photos are better ... Technically speaking, not stunning, but at least there's some content ...

 

More purdy travel pix then!


Venice


DSC00611.jpg


Prague


PICT0082.jpg


Prague (view from our hotel window)


PICT0139.jpg


Chicago (where I am now!)


100_2488.jpg


Vatican City


DSC00550.jpg


Prague


DSC00327.jpg


Rome


DSC00491.jpg


Santa Monica, California


100_1296.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sunset in northern denmark

5052.jpg


Sunset in copenhagen

april06_CPH020.jpg


My daughter

ella_063.jpg


A balinese temple

bali08_077.jpg


Sunrise on Java

java_131.jpg


Sunset over the Bali strait

bali_051.jpg


Mexico City at night

mex2_087.jpg


Village in Chiapas (Mexico)

mex122.jpg


Sri Lankan ladies on a temple visit

lanka3_133.jpg


Highlands of Peru

pe1_070.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by burster

View Post

Hey D, Here's a subject for ya. Taken at a local game ranch.


wave.gif


donkey01.jpg


PS. Where's that Gary Numan book you said you were going to send me over a year ago?


mad.gif

 

PM me your address ... I'm going to the post office in a few hours ...


BTW ... poor exposure ... and i don't really care for animals in captivity ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Tomkeen

View Post

Where was that last pic taken Michael? Looks beautiful..


And I'm amazed at how much you've travelled, and quite jealeous too..

 

The last photo in the group above was taken from up on a bluff overlooking Santa Monica Beach, near Los Angeles.


I have been fortunate to travel a fair amount - years of business travel in the US left me with lots of frequent flier miles to use for vacations. In September we will be in Istanbul!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...